Wasteful Spending by Fort Cherry School Board?

We had such high hopes for Fort Cherry.

But, recent events show persisting secrecy and questionable decisions made by the board.  Consequently, we have to ask, is the board acting responsibly with our tax dollars?

By now, many of you have read the recent articles concerning FC’s business manager, Paul R. Sroka.

Paul R. Sroka

http://www.observer-reporter.com/article/20150116/NEWS01/150119562#.VLpNW4E8KrU

Since October 2014, Sroka has not reported to work at FC, but has taken a position as the interim business manager at Jeannette. 

  

On December 2, 2014, the Tribune Review reported that Jeannette School District hired Sroka as interim business manager at rate of $275 per diem.

http://triblive.com/neighborhoods/yourjeannette/7281634-74/district-business-contract#axzz3QL4nrjaa 

While Jacoby and board members have kept silent on the reason for Sroka’s departure and the status of his employment at FC, the Observer Reporter was able to obtain confirmation that the district is still paying him as an employee. Even the OR’s choice of title - Mum's the word - signifies the position the Board and Jacoby are taking on informing the public.

And what was the need for that quickly thrown together executive session on the day of the paper’s release (Saturday, January 17)?  At the next scheduled board meeting (January 19), board member Tina Cottrill announced that the executive session had been held on the 17th, citing “personnel” as the reason, but giving no details.

http://www.observer-reporter.com/article/20150203/NEWS01/150209864

This blog has reported on the repeated misbehavior of Paul R. Sroka.  We are happy to see that he is no longer working at Fort Cherry School District and is away from our children.

But taxpayers should take issue with the fact that we are still paying Sroka's $80K+ salary as though he is reporting to the district and performing his duties as FC’s business manager.  The board also approved to pay others to perform Sroka’s duties while he is in Jeannette.

At the October 27 meeting, the appointment of a substitute business manager, the appointment of a board secretary, and extended hours for a Title 1 aide to assist in the business office were approved, but Sroka's status was not mentioned.  The substitute business manager is to be paid a salary of $60,000, the board secretary $1750, and the aide, $27,024.98.

  

Fast forward to the February 2, 2015, board meeting - FC’s new auditors, Cottrill, Arbutina & Associates, presented the findings of the annual school audit – the first one performed by Cottrill, Arbutina.

Cottrill, Arbutina pointed out a disturbing lack of control over the electronic fund transfers.  The auditors pointed out that the EFTs are executed by one person with no oversight.  According to the auditors, this is very serious and oversight is needed.

Hmmmm. . 

This August 2012 Fort Cherry American Express corporate credit card statement shows an ACH (electronic fund transfer) payment.  As reported in the Trib, this is the account used by Paul Sroka for unauthorized personal charges.

Separate statements show 38 charges on an American Express card in Sroka's name from July 29 through Sept. 28, 2012, totaling more than $1,900. The balance was paid.

Those statements include:

• Eight charges totaling $330.74 at a Get-Go station on Washington Pike in Bridgeville

• Eleven charges at the Giant Eagle Market District grocery store in Settlers Ridge totaling $417.75.

• Charges at a pizzeria and Wal-Mart in Athens, Ohio, on Sept. 6, 2012, the day Ohio University records show Sroka officiated a football game between the Bobcats and New Mexico State.

• Charges for a trip to Orlando, Fla., from July 26 through Aug. 3, 2012, that included a Payless Car Rental and $277.98 for admission to Universal's Islands of Adventure theme park.

Read more: http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/4755522-74/district-charges-cherry#ixzz3SIpvvPNO 
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

Previous superintendent R. Dinnen stated that the account was closed, but was the board ever given proof that district funds were not used to pay for the unauthorized personal charges incurred?

Without oversight, would it not be easy for someone in charge of the finances of the district (like the Business Manager) to electronically transfer district funds to whomever  . . . ?  

Back in 2012, under Dinnen, Sroka was not fired for his unauthorized use of the district’s corporate credit card, but maybe it finally caught up to him. . .

Whatever prompted Sroka’s departure from the district, FC taxpayers should not be forced to continue to pay his $80K+ salary, especially without knowledge of why district funds are paying him to NOT report to work.

Over the past several months the board has spent money on many heretofore unforeseen, but necessary, repairs to the campus buildings and grounds. It also has plans for future improvements and needs additional money for PSERS.

This all comes at a cost to taxpayers, of course.

Additional tax increases are coming. This is necessary if it improves the facilities and education at Fort Cherry.  But, if the past is any indication, will additional money flowing into the district simply go toward funding the administration?

Since the beginning of FC’s calendar year on July 1, 2014, the board approved the following administrative expenditures even though they are not in the budget :

• An $80,000 payout to Dinnen.  It was obvious at the July meeting that this was not anticipated by board members, as board members questioned the “unexpected expense”. 

Taxes were increased 2.5%.  The public was told the increase was necessary to fund the bond payment.  However, Dinnen’s payout alone is the equivalent of approximately 2 mils of that tax increase. 

• A payout to the previous Facilities Manager.  The board has not publicly acknowledged his leaving or the terms of his contract buyout.  An interim Director of Maintenance was approved at the October 2014 meeting:

“Mrs. Errett made a motion, which was seconded by Mrs. McKay

that the Board approve Jason Dorsch as the interim Director of

Maintenance at a salary of $51,400. Motion passed unanimously.”

Theoretically, that buyout could very well have used up the rest of the funds generated by the increased millage.

• A generous 5-year, $114,000 contract for Jacoby.  This was unanimously approved even though the State Auditor General recommends a maximum 3-year contract for new superintendents (in case the contract must be bought out).  See Superintendent contract:   http://www.fortcherry.org/Page/9  

And now, the board is working on a severance agreement with Paul Sroka. 

The school auditors informed the board the district went over its administrative budget last year.  According to the auditors, doing so is against state law. What impact will Sroka’s severance agreement have on the administrative budget this year?  Now that the board has officially heard from its auditors that the district must spend within its budget constraints, will they heed the auditors warning? 

So, how will the board pay for all the above unexpected expenditures?

With so much money being spent on administrative buyouts, contracts, and administrative Act 93 perks, what does that leave for the education of our children?  

The district is supposed to be in the business of educating our children, NOT furthering the education and financial status of the administrators.

This board seems very comfortable appeasing the administration.  We all know that truth, honor, and integrity went out the window a long time ago.  Have they also lost sight of “Student Success is our #1 Priority”?

Can it be? . . . .

. . . . . . a new FC?!!!!!!!!

Having spent $12,000 on a contract with the PA School Board Association for help with its superintendent search, FC School Board filled the position internally, appointing Elementary Principal Jill Jacoby Acting Superintendent - someone they, and more importantly the staff and students, know.

The authors of this blog have been critical of Jacoby's past actions when Robert W Dinnen was in charge; however . . .

Jacoby is at the helm now!

It is our hope that she makes the necessary changes to move Fort Cherry in a positive direction.

A good step in achieving that goal – meet with the community:

The following public notice appeared in the Observer-Reporter:

The Fort Cherry School District will hold Town Hall Meetings on the following dates:

·     Hickory Residents: Tuesday, September 9, 2014 from 7-9 [p.m.] at the Hickory Fire Hall
·       McDonald Residents: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 from 7-9 [p.m.] at the McDonald Library
·       Midway/Robinson Residents: Thursday, September 11, 2014 from 7-9 [p.m.] at the Midway Community Center

All community members welcome - parents and non-child residents. Come and meet the new Acting Superintendent, Dr. Jill M. Jacoby. Bring your questions, concerns, and comments. Looking forward to seeing a great outpour of community representation

So, FC parents and taxpayers, as requested,

. . . bring it!

Mission Possible?!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idIwBpc98Zg

The intent of the authors of this blog has been, and always will be, to improve the Fort Cherry School District  both academically and financially.  We hope to achieve that goal by informing the public and the board members of those things which, in our opinion, prohibit the district from moving forward in a positive way.

That being said, the last post pointed this out:

Perhaps it would better serve the students for Jack Okorn to do what he was hired to do - maintain the equipment, thus eliminating the need for an IT assistant at all.  Or perhaps to better serve the students and taxpayers, FC should consider replacing the entire FC Technology Department with one qualified Technology Director who possesses a college degree.

A recent twitter post by Jack Okorn seems to support the need for a Technology Department overhaul.

https://mobile.twitter.com/technoman

"Calling all hackers we have a mission"? Really? "PM me please for info"- which mean Personal Message or, contact him directly for information.

Now we ask, does the district truly want someone who may be encouraging an illegal activity working with our students and staff?  

Unlawful use of computer and other computer crimes - 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7611

 Pennsylvania Statutes

                               SUBCHAPTER B
                       HACKING AND SIMILAR OFFENSES

        Cross References.  Subchapter B is referred to in sections
     7605, 7606 of this title.

     Sec.
     7611.  Unlawful use of computer and other computer crimes.
     7612.  Disruption of service.
     7613.  Computer theft.
     7614.  Unlawful duplication.
     7615.  Computer trespass.
     7616.  Distribution of computer virus.
     § 7611.  Unlawful use of computer and other computer crimes.
        (a)  Offense defined.--A person commits the offense of
     unlawful use of a computer if he:
            (1)  accesses or exceeds authorization to access, alters,
        damages or destroys any computer, computer system, computer
        network, computer software, computer program, computer
        database, World Wide Web site or telecommunication device or
        any part thereof with the intent to interrupt the normal
        functioning of a person or to devise or execute any scheme or
        artifice to defraud or deceive or control property or
        services by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
        representations or promises;
            (2)  intentionally and without authorization accesses or
        exceeds authorization to access, alters, interferes with the
        operation of, damages or destroys any computer, computer
        system, computer network, computer software, computer
        program, computer database, World Wide Web site or
        telecommunication device or any part thereof; or
            (3)  intentionally or knowingly and without authorization
        gives or publishes a password, identifying code, personal
        identification number or other confidential information about
        a computer, computer system, computer network, computer
        database, World Wide Web site or telecommunication device.
        (b)  Grading.--An offense under this section shall constitute
     a felony of the third degree.
        (c)  Prosecution not prohibited.--Prosecution for an offense
     under this section shall not prohibit prosecution under any
     other section of this title.

        Cross References.  Section 7611 is referred to in section
     7603 of this title.

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.076.011.000.html

Teachers, coaches, students and sponsors have lost their positions or been suspended for less offenses than recruiting hackers for possible illegal activity.
What will the Fort Cherry Board do now?

• Will they act as they have done in the past and quickly open the IT position?
• Will the IT position be added to the agenda so the board can promptly eliminate Mr. Okorn as they did for the Majorette's sponsor, who was fired over a petty issue despite objections from a majority of the squad and their parents? 
• Will they properly look into this incident and act accordingly, or will they allow this to go unpunished as they did for Sroka, who used the district's AMEX card for personal purchases among other things?

FC administrators have smart phones and computers in their possession, paid for by taxpayers. They are to be used properly and for school purposes. If Okorn's tweet was sent using any of these devices, he may also be in violation of school policy 815.

http://www.fortcherry.org/cms/lib03/PA01000874/Centricity/Shared/District_Policies/800_Operations/815-Acceptable_Use_of_Computer_NetworksInternet_Agreement.1.pdf


FCSB, you now have a mission....No! You have a duty.  Do the right thing by the public and our students. Your duty is to take appropriate action based on facts and figures, not emotions, personal agendas, or vendettas!

Paul R. Sroka . . . a Pain in the Neck?? .. .

A Burt Hill (Stantec) architect presented plans for the proposed track at the May 19, 2014 Fort Cherry School Board Committee Meeting.  The proposed plan eliminated space for the portable restroom facilities that Ranger fans are all too familiar with.  This is not the first time that the Stantec architect seemed unaware of the district's current site plan and facilities.

Perhaps Burt Hill (Stantec) was not the best choice for FC?  Could it be that Fort Cherry's business manager, Paul Sroka, put his personal agenda (the pursuit of Burt Hill's Ms. Montgomery) before the needs of the district?

It may be telling that Butler County Community College has not been able to come to an “amicable agreement” on issues concerning a contract with Stantec.  According to the Trib, BCCC could not reach an amicable agreement with Stantec, and so contracted with another firm.
http://triblive.com/news/butler/6155135-74/board-stantec-firm#axzz32fwldBCW

Perhaps BCCC didn't reach an agreement due to its failure to extend personal invitations to dinner and a Pirates game to a Stantec employee?  (See last post.)  Perhaps the judgment of the BCCC business manager was not clouded by the pursuit of a Stantec employee, but was properly focused on the students and taxpayers?  Perhaps the BCCC business manager was not using the school's email to make a date, as was Fort Cherry's business manager, Paul R. Sroka (a violation of FC District Policy 815)?

The use of the telecommunications network for illegal, inappropriate or unethical purposes by students or employees is prohibited. For example, but not as a limitation, the following uses are prohibited:

1. Use of the network to facilitate illegal activity.

2. Use of the network for commercial or for profit purposes.

3. Use of the network for non-work or non-school-related work.

FC District Policy 815

Acceptable Use of Computer Networks/ Internet Agreement

The board is in the process of approving a budget put together by the current administration, an administration that seems to put their own needs before that of our children's education.

As for Paul Sroka, it seems he feels put upon by the budgeting process . . .

No idea whom he feels "screams" at him during budget time - Dinnen??? - it certainly is not the board.

That being said, here's one example of the FC administration putting their own needs before that of the students.  The district is in dire need of a music teacher in the elementary.  There is also a need for a third grade teacher.  The high school librarian and Drivers’ Ed program that were eliminated as part of the 2010 budget cuts have never been replaced. . . .

 . . . all would benefit our students . . .

Yet administration is asking for a full-time IT assistant for Jack Okorn (FC currently employs a part-time IT assistant).  For those of you who are unaware, Jack Okorn is the "Technology Coordinator" at FC.  He is self-taught.  Mr. Okorn and his fellow administrators feel it is a district priority to employ a full-time assistant for Mr. Okorn, the argument being that Mr. Okorn cannot keep up with the technology demands of the district.  Funny thing, up until the time a resident alerted board members, Mr. Okorn had plenty of time during FC school hours - on the taxpayers’ dime - to maintain the multiple "technology" blogs he established (a violation of District Policy 815).

·        http://www.jackstechcorner.com/

·        http://www.jackokorn.com/

·        https://mobile.twitter.com/technoman

·        http://thephotographyguy.net/

·        http://www.jtclearning.com/

Perhaps it would better serve the students for Jack Okorn to do what he was hired to do - maintain the equipment, thus eliminating the need for an IT assistant at all?  Or perhaps to better serve the students and taxpayers, FC should consider replacing the entire FC Technology Department with one qualified Technology Director who possesses a college degree in IT?

And as a final note to Paul Sroka . . . really, Paul? Discussing doctor's appointments?  Setting up a date? 
And, the Big Ten????!

Paul R. Sroka's "dinner date" . . . continued . . .

No doubt, FC administrators and members of the board will try to downplay the email exchange between Paul R. Sroka and Jennifer Montgomery of Burt-Hill by claiming the “dinner date” was business related.

Here are a few more of the emails.

Business or pleasure?

The emails speak for themselves . . . 

Is FC Business Manager Paul R. Sroka making sound business recommendations or making a date?

"Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto announced his choice for budget director, [Edward S. Kiely] who owes the Internal Revenue Service more than $83,000 in back taxes, . . "

Gerald Shuster, a University of Pittsburgh political communications professor, said Kiely’s potential job relates to the issues about his debt.

“He’s the one who’s supposed to be the financial guru making recommendations for Peduto and the entire city,” Shuster said. “If he hasn’t made those kinds of wise decisions himself, how can he do it for the city?”

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

February 7, 2014

We agree with Professor Shuster.  The same thing applies to FC and business manager Paul R. Sroka.

Why would FC hire someone to make wise decisions for the district that hasn’t made wise decisions himself?  Why was Paul R. Sroka, a man with a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, hired in the first place to manage the district's money?

The business manager is involved in all things financially related to the school district.  The board of directors relies on the business manager’s input when voting on items that directly affect the staff, students, and taxpayers of the district.  Sroka’s bankruptcy was on his record long before he applied at Fort Cherry.

On January 17, 1996, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court finalized Paul Robert Sroka’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  Sroka’s bankruptcy carries a 20-year disposition.

For obvious reasons, the resume Sroka submitted to Fort Cherry does not mention the bankruptcy.  Nothing on the resume would make Sroka stand out from other candidates who may have applied for the position.

However, Sroka sent a letter expressing interest in the FC Business Manager position to the school auditor Cypher & Cypher, possibly giving his resume a level of legitimacy that the other applicants lacked. 

Did Cypher meet with Sroka as he requested in the letter?  Did Cypher feel comfortable forwarding Sroka’s name on to Fort Cherry without checking into his financial background?

Once Dinnen received the letter from Cypher, he should have conducted a financial background check on Sroka and any other applicants who may have applied.  As Professor Shuster said about Kiely, “(the) potential job relates to the issues about his debt.”   Dinnen, in his capacity as superintendent, should have done his due diligence to protect the financial integrity of the district. 

Or . . . here’s something to consider . . .

Is it possible Dinnen was aware of Sroka’s bankruptcy and recommended him to the board anyway?

Is it possible that Dinnen was looking for a candidate with something to hide, just as Dinnen hid  his annulled Letter of Eligibility from the board in 1998?

WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

A Chapter 7 bankruptcy would make an individual very expensive to bond.  Bonding is not a requirement of business managers in Pennsylvania, but PA School Code mandates that board secretaries must be bonded.  The business manager at FC also acts as board secretary.  FC taxpayers foot the bill for Sroka’s bond, not Sroka. 

In addition, experience has shown that Paul R. Sroka, who is dealing with his own financial difficulties, is not able to act wisely with FC finances.

This blog has shown the public many of the financial gaffes this district has endured under Paul R. Sroka including:

·       Habitual miscoding of expenses

·       Bouncing checks in the scholarship accounts and subsequently telling an outright lie to the board to hide his incompetence

·       Issuing reimbursements to fellow administrators despite the lack of proper receipts

·       Not sending items out for bid

·       Commandeering the district’s AmEx for personal unauthorized expenses

That’s just a few.

Most recently, the board relied on Sroka’s recommendation in choosing bond counsel and habitually relies on his recommendations regarding upcoming renovations.

It’s interesting that, back in March of 2010, the district fired Foreman Architects and entered a contract with a new architectural firm, Burt-Hill, for the planned renovations.  At that time, the administration was reaching for the stars and had a $58 million renovation in mind.  Consequently, Burt-Hill was handed a contract potentially worth more than $2.8 million.

The official school board minutes do not reflect any discussion about replacing the architect.  By law, such discussion is not permitted in executive session, and therefore should have been recorded in the minutes if it had occurred.

As stated above, the business manager is involved in all things financially related to the school district, and as such, is the contact person for the architectural firm.  It stands to reason that the board would rely on Sroka’s recommendation when choosing an architect.

So why was Foreman Architects suddenly replaced by Burt-Hill?

An email exchange between Paul Sroka and an employee of Burt Hill recently fell into the hands of a local taxpayer and subsequently given to the authors of this blog.   A post-it note attached to the emails posed the question:

From the email exchange, it appears Paul Sroka may have been trying to initiate a relationship with an employee of Burt Hill.  At this point, we don’t feel it’s necessary to publish all of the emails in our possession, but this exchange in particular is telling . . .

Was Paul Sroka using his influence over the board’s decision to award a multi-million dollar contract to impress a girl?????

Tsk, tsk, Paul Sroka, tsk, tsk . . .

Note the date and time of the email exchange:  March 22, 2010 at 11:19 and 11:21 a.m.  That very evening the board voted to hire Burt-Hill.  The official board minutes of March 22, 2010, reflect:

"Mr. Cechetti made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Duran, that the Board approve Burt-Hill as the Architectural Firm of record. Motion passed unanimously."

Also, think about the subject line of the emails:  “Thank You”

Why “Thank You”?

Is it possible Paul R. Sroka informed Ms. Montgomery that her firm would be awarded the contract before the board actually took the vote that evening on March 22, 2010?

Is it possible Paul R. Sroka further guaranteed Ms. Montgomery’s firm would be awarded the contract by releasing the financial details of bids supplied by other interested architectural firms to Ms. Montgomery in prior emails?

Hmmmm? . . . .